Chris Matthews, in his epic post-debate meltdown after the Romney-Obama debate, had the most telling line: this was not an MSNBC debate.

Matthews and other liberals were particularly upset that Mitt Romney had managed to actually speak uninterrupted, occasionally running over his time and requesting opportunities to respond to things Obama said (although the final tally showed Obama spoke for 4 more minutes than Romney, owing largely to his umms.).

Tonight was a different animal. Joe Biden came in with one game plan: dont let voters hear a word Paul Ryan said.

The post-debate count circulated by the RNC showed Biden interrupting Ryan 82 times. He was often loud enough that it was hard to hear Ryan speak, and Ryan was frequently cut off before he could finish his answers. On the rare occasions Ryan spoke without being interrupted, Biden laughed, snorted, grinned (even when discussing serious subjects like war and abortion), or at a minimum immediately declared that everything Ryan said was a lie. Biden even shouted at moderator Martha Raddatz and called her a liar too, telling her she wasnt being straight with him.

It appears from the immediate post-debate reaction that this performance was what liberal supporters of the Administration wanted: use the hecklers veto, dont let the other guy finish his sentences. It made Al Gores famous eye-rolling and sighing performance look like an Oxford debate. Raddatz did  with one cringe-inducing exception at the end  put in a good set of questions, but she failed at what I regard as Job One of a moderator, which is to prevent interruptions from letting the candidates talk.

Its hard to evaluate the substance of the debate beyond the constant interruptions (I did think Ryan did a good job of remaining civil, polite and mostly cheerful through the whole spectacle). Ryan got off to a rough start the first question or two, which should have been golden opportunities to fillet the Administrations dishonesty on Libya; he got in some shots, but let Biden distract him by giving rambling answers that packed in everything from Iraq to Afghanistan to bin Laden. After that, Ryan settled in and was the same Ryan weve seen so many times, patiently jousting with hostile questioners on hostile turf.

Biden, of course, told a battery of bald-faced lies, as expected (he pretended not to have voted for the Afghan and Iraq wars and Medicare Part D, and gave an absurdly dishonest rendering of the HHS mandate). That may not hurt him, but he may be more hurt by his complete failure to (1) make any sort of positive case for the Administrations economic record or (2) offer any solutions to anything besides tax hikes, tax hikes and even more tax hikes.

The debate was again short on social issues. Of note, however, was that even Joe Biden couldnt and wouldnt defend the nonsense idea that an unborn child is not a human being.

Bidens main job tonight was to find a way to change the narrative the past week that followed the last debate. With the broader media and independent voters, I doubt he did. With the liberal base, though, at least his adamant refusal to let Ryan finish a sentence gave them something to cheer for. So, for Joe Biden, a modest win, but perhaps a Pyrrhic one.

Ryans job was to look and sound presidential, which of course is hard to do sitting down and also hard to do when you are in the equivalent of an argument with a loud drunk at a bar. And the heavy focus on foreign affairs meant he was mostly not playing on the turf he favors. But I think the average TV viewer at home saw a guy who had plans and answers, and kept his cool, and on one occasion  when he referred to Biden being under duress to make up for Obamas bad debate performance  let the viewers in on what was going on.

The wild card, as always, is undecided voters. On the question of which side has actual solutions and can get things done on a bipartisan basis when needed, though, it should be clear. Romney and Ryan are defending plans and proposals  even those that are not 100% fleshed out  because they have plans and proposals. Ryan scored a particularly big hit with his account of having the CBO tell him they couldnt score Obamas plan because it was just a speech (a chronic issue during last years debt ceiling negotiations). Bill Clinton got re-elected in large part because he made deals that gave Republicans things of lasting value they actually wanted (welfare reform, DOMA, later a capital gains tax cut). Obama never offers anything of the sort, and thats why Biden had nothing to sell in terms of a competing narrative on that score. I have to have faith that voters who are not with the GOP down the line noticed that difference.

Examining Congressman Ryans arguments, it was a clear victory, hopefully independents see it this way. Biden, supposedly Vice President of the United States, should be civil, reserved, articulate, intelligent, and a myriad of other traits, but he acted a fool and a complete ass. Personally, I was embarrassed to have the Vice President of my country, acting like that given the dire situation our nation is in. As far as Radditz is concerned, she did a lousy job, but what would one expect seeing as though she's in bed with Obozo the liar.

This deabate was a piece with the First debate and here is my analysis:

The opponents of this administration are high energy, earnest people who understand that we have serious problems that must be faced and solved. They are very serious problems some of which will outlast two terms if they are able to do a good job in the first terms.

On the incumbent side we have two people who are simply not serious about the job that needs to be done and are just cruising along with the flow, collecting their checks.

I think that on the their side it was a terrible debate. On our side, Paul did a great job and won the converstion.

"... she failed at what I regard as Job One of a moderator, which is to prevent interruptions from letting the candidates talk."

The bitch herself interrupted Ryan several times.

He was trying to make his point and she would interrupt with questions or statements. If I were Ryan, I would have stopped her a couple times and asked "Wait a minute - which one of you am I debating?"

I don't think there will be bump from this debate. The MSM are going all out to say "this is a win" -- and CNN was also saying "In the past, a VP debate has not amounted to much, BUT in this case..." and huff is talking of "our guy got back"

This was playing to the loud-mouthed dim base and they won.

10
posted on 10/12/2012 6:49:40 AM PDT
by Cronos
(**Marriage is about commitment, cohabitation is about convenience.**)

I mostly listened, and didn’t see Biden’s behavior until afterward. My impression at first was that Ryan was doing poorly & needed to stand up for himself. By the end, my impression was that only one person there was an adult.

Having viewed some of the debate now, my impression is that if Biden thinks it is funny that work is hard to find & gas prices have doubled & that food prices are thru the roof ($5/lb hamburger yesterday!)...then lots of folks aren’t laughing with him.

It reinforced my conclusion last night - only one person there was an adult and bothered to show up sober.

We watched the debate last night (if that’s what it’s called) between the smarmy and ignorant Biden and the younger, composed Ryan. Biden is a study in lunacy, bad manners and perhaps the onset of dementia. It’s too bad that Obama’s performance in the first presidential debate and what happened last night either goes over the heads of the vast unwashed and elitist PC lunatics who continue to support this phony president and his looney sidekick, or they don’t care as long as they continue to get something for doing nothing.

12
posted on 10/12/2012 6:54:53 AM PDT
by IbJensen
(Since light travels faster than sound, some people appear bright until you hear them speak.)

Paul Ryan should have stopped and said “I would like to remind my colleague here, that these topics are very serious and people are hurting and his smirking, laughing and huffing at things because you disagree with me do not make you more right. It makes this discussion less serious and if that’s your goal, that’s on you. Im here to explain to the American people I am a serious person who takes these topics seriously”

15
posted on 10/12/2012 7:08:28 AM PDT
by smith288
(Peace at all costs gives you tyranny free of charge)

I agree on the sentiment, but a snarky response like that (while satisfying) would have undermined Ryan’s credibility as a serious contender for VP, and would have been the whole headline this morning - “Ryan Unable to Out-Debate Biden, Loses Temper”.

That was the response I believe Biden and Raddatz wanted, so Ryan’s refusal to succumb to frustration was probably a very good thing.

I would probably have gone ballistic, myself.

18
posted on 10/12/2012 8:18:27 AM PDT
by MortMan
(Laughter is the best medicine, especially when ridiculing your enemies.)

Disclaimer:
Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual
posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its
management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the
exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.